Green Mountain Audio Europas

[GranteedEV]

I see- you had found a quote about cables in which I still hear a lovely difference, a statement I made in 2003. So I am right, I never said this about our speakers. Thank you for reminding me, and I am sorry for any confusion here. I do hope you found some of my responses useful.

You must have misread my post:

and you should use them with audio magic cables, Edge solid state amps or Manley tube amps and whichever power cord you find gives you the best sound by auditioning as many as you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy
cause we know they have that "special something"

 

[davidtwotrees]

Just a thanks to Jerry, and to Mr. Roy J for taking the time and making an effort. I love this hobby, am not all that cerebral about it, and think this site is the best of all the audio sites out there. Thanks again, Mr. Roy and Happy New Year to you-

 

[KEW]

Originally Posted by KEW View Post
The subjective experience is invaluable, but why reject measurements instead of using measurements in combination with subjective experience.

Shakey clearly stated he did not reject measurements, but looks at them and also listens.

By "not reject measurements", do you mean he endorses their use? I'm flabbergasted!
Boy, I sure missed that! As I recall, he was also rejecting the validity of double blind testing!
Could you please call my attention to where he "clearly stated he did not reject measurements"!
Thanks!

 

[JerryLove]

Since I haven't cleared time and called Roy, I have not put up my review. I did spend the holiday with the Europas (mostly) playing Christmas music... then got the flu. Still fighting with an infection

Our cast marble is completely unlike Corian.

For the purpose of giving an impression of look / feel (which is what was asked), I stand by my comparison. I was attempting to make no comment on the sonic properties of Corian, nor do I claim a structural or sonic similarity (BTW, not all Corian has flecks of stuff).

The tweeter is 28mm and the woofer is 6-inch. The bass port is tuned to 54Hz, with 4th-order Butterworth alignment. BTW, don't trust a closeup mic measurement above 600-800Hz, for the mic itself interferes.

The mic seems to give good readings off my customs, N801, 801s2, Sig S2, and PSB400i.

What are those little copper loops on either side of the tweeter? At first glance I thought it was a manufacturing error, but both have it and they are symmetrical, so I assume they are part of the tweeter design.

FYI to all speaker builders-- On any speaker, simply put on a $40 stethoscope and have a listen to the sidewalls of the cabinet. On thin-wall wood cabinets, no matter the bracing, one hears the low bass come right through, assuming the speaker-design itself puts out anything below ~55Hz. I don't know why reviewers don't employ one to verify manufacturers' claims about cabinet construction. Tells me much more than any vibration-sensor test, such as performed by Stereophile.

I must get the wife to bring home a sethoscope. This sounds like fun.

Gonna have to match bass output though... perhaps put in a filter to limit all speakers to match the weakest.

I suspect that the winner will be the N801, followed by the customs, then the Europas.

In the case of GMA, by following the advice on our Owner's Guides.

BTW, I did have that setup in the week leading into Christmas.

All of our two-way speakers were designed to be fine with no subwoofer in rooms less than 17 feet wide with average-height ceilings, on classical, jazz and all else but heavy rock. Yet, a sub is always nice to add, even in smaller rooms.

My curent test room is large. The Europa's do fill it very well. Some of the songs they shine the best on are indeed Jazz (Diana Krall's "Fly Me to the Moon" for example). Where they have the most problem includes rock, hip-hop, certain male vocals, certain piano notes, and movies (where dialog is *very* clear, but other sounds have issues)

I disagree until one compares very good examples of either type. Then their sound qualities do start to converge. I think the differences are most audible on music that really swings or is otherwise highly emotional, perhaps even subtle in the way it is played. Most solid-state misses those aspects of the music, and most tube gear gets that part more 'right'. Which of course, one does not really know until it is experienced. Hence, a lot of listening to different music, and to live performances by great bands is required to know what might be missing.

That doesn't match my experience. (I've listened to McIntosh, Krell, Classe', Mark Levinson and a host of others. Except for McIntosh and FatMan, I couldn't name the tube-amp manufacturers specifically). That also doesn't seem to match the experience of the people *at* McIntosh (based on Roger Russell's website). Nor does it show on insturments (which I believe to be definitive when discussing electrical waveforms).

I agree with the last two sentences. I do NOT agree with the crap most reviewers spout- no matter how enchantingly they describe what they hear. Many seem to not even know what real instruments sound like, revealed to me anyway by their choices of music and seeing a picture of the room and setup.

BTW, I brought in some real insurments. I'm planning on recording myself for playback (I play Clarinet and Sax, and several friends play guitar).

I also play piano (poorly, though my uncle was a professional), and though I have none here am quite familiar with the sound.

Most speakers do not have any sort of time coherency. Time-coherency at its most basic definition is that the tweeter move when the woofer moves, at all frequencies where they are blending above and below the crossver point. That is the 'coherency' as time passes.

Most all speakers start the tweeter too soon (and by different amounts at different frequencies) because of their crossover circuit design. In them, the tweeter leads the woofer by exactly one full cycle at the crossover point, or by exactly one-half cycle in which case, the tweeter's polarity gets flipped. This is not my opinion, but what is revealed in tests and shown in the 'filter-theory math' used for designing any filter or any crossover circuit.

Some of my speakers use active crossovers. There's actually a button on my DCX for adjusting time alignment (and, of course, settings in the user-interface).

I advise no EQ for now, Jerry, since you are trying to determine the basic nature of the speakers. BTW, there is no rise in the middle range, but only what you hear as the 'more-present' sound of time-coherence.

That's consensus. No EQ.

The sound issue causes actual, physical, discomfort and feels exactly like harsh tweeters (in fact it reminds me a lot of when I was underpowering my N801s). I suppose, though interesting, the cause is less important than the effect.

(I'll note that there are conditions, including high volume, to cause this. Prolonged moderate Christmas music was not unpleasent).

It's perhaps worth mentioning that my wife makes the exact same complaint.

Do know that one cannot measure the flatness of the middle range in anything but a rather large room with a microphone placed at the listening distance. In a medium-size or smaller room, one can only inaccurately judge the flatness of response via a mic. Again, because a mic does not sense sound the way we do.

I did put up the "in room, properly set, about 8' away" measurement didn't I? There was a lot of room interaction, but you could see general trends.

 

[GranteedEV]

How is your room acoustically treated?

 

[RoyJ]

Hi KEW,

By "not reject measurements", do you mean he endorses their use? I'm flabbergasted!
Boy, I sure missed that! As I recall, he was also rejecting the validity of double blind testing!
Could you please call my attention to where he "clearly stated he did not reject measurements"!
Thanks!

Here:

You see the difference is I know that measurements can be meaningful in some respects.
Shakey

and here:

The general attitude around here seems to be more about waterfall plots and frequency response graphs. That's interesting stuff for sure.
Shakey

For Jerry:

The mic seems to give good readings off my customs, N801, 801s2, Sig S2, and PSB400i.... I did put up the "in room, properly set, about 8' away" measurement didn't I? There was a lot of room interaction, but you could see general trends.

I've already described some of the ways these types of measurements are not accurate enough to explain much of what is being heard on music. Yet, I am comfortable with knowing they mean something useful to you as I myself was in that position (professionally, almost day-in and day-out) from 1974 to 1994. Here, I am trying to give you the benefit of my experience since you asked, and something unavailable to me when I began.

What are those little copper loops on either side of the tweeter? At first glance I thought it was a manufacturing error, but both have it and they are symmetrical, so I assume they are part of the tweeter design.

Those are its two lead-in wires down into its voice coil. In fact, they are the voice-coil wires themselves- very small, delicate and highly flexible (especially compared to other tweeters) so the dome can move the most freely on small signals, which is a stroke we cannot measure short of the Siemans million$ laser displacement-measuring system in Germany (which has shown to my satisfaction that a very famous diamond-dome tweeter fails to move when the SPL is below ~60dB at one meter- research by a ribbon-tweeter designer whose parts I am considering using).

Also, those two wires being the actual voice-coil wires means they do not have the usual (and cheaper-to-manufacture) solder connections made right there as in most tweeters, for less moving mass and better dynamic balance.

Jerry, you once mentioned that one just has to isolate the variables and then test for them. Quite true. In this case, how would any layman or reviewer imagine such technical variables exist, and then how to test for either one? This is some of what I am at least trying to share, trying to publicize here and on my website, and in that letter to sixmoons-- some of the many things about speaker design that go into making the best-possible sound, and how one might measure those. Regardless, it turns out most folks can hear 'that one problem' when the design-difference is isolated as the single variable, and then the right music played to trigger 'it'/to compare 'the difference' before and after. For me, this means I don't need to invest in Seimans' machine (which they would not sell anyway, as there is only one, in their R&D lab).

My current test room is large. The Europa's do fill it very well. Some of the songs they shine the best on are indeed Jazz (Diana Krall's "Fly Me to the Moon" for example). Where they have the most problem includes rock, hip-hop, certain male vocals, certain piano notes, and movies (where dialog is *very* clear, but other sounds have issues)

The troubles you are hearing I know are NOT in the speakers (which I have also demonstrated for years here at the factory and at the shows). We can talk about that anytime of course. So, if it is indeed true that any harshness is not being created by the speakers, ...bear with me... then the only remaining possibility is you are finally hearing the speakers reveal something less-than-good from some other part of the system, triggered by specific music. The question to answer is 'which thing' is most at fault. Which is why you'd call me or one of our retailers, as any Owner is invited to do. Usually, there is at least one thing to change that helps a whole lot, to the point that your wife would hear the difference without actively paying attention. Happens here all the time with our local Owners.

from Roy-
I disagree until one compares very good examples of either type. Then their sound qualities do start to converge. I think the differences are most audible on music that really swings or is otherwise highly emotional, perhaps even subtle in the way it is played. Most solid-state misses those aspects of the music, and most tube gear gets that part more 'right'. Which of course, one does not really know until it is experienced. Hence, a lot of listening to different music, and to live performances by great bands is required to know what might be missing.

That doesn't match my experience. (I've listened to McIntosh, Krell, Classe', Mark Levinson and a host of others. Except for McIntosh and FatMan, I couldn't name the tube-amp manufacturers specifically). That also doesn't seem to match the experience of the people *at* McIntosh (based on Roger Russell's website). Nor does it show on instruments (which I believe to be definitive when discussing electrical waveforms).

Sorry you have not heard that yet, but many others also have not, even those who occupy the most exalted positions in design. Go figure... I do know that most often this obfuscation is the fault of the speakers being used-- from my professional experience.

The musicality difference between amps (and other stuff) does not and may never show up on the finest measurement devices is my and Shakey's point. So one must listen and to save time and headaches, also be willing to seek guidance/advice from honest people who have been there and done that. Here I would suggest Shakey for this, if you don't want advice from me.

BTW, I brought in some real insurments. I'm planning on recording myself for playback (I play Clarinet and Sax, and several friends play guitar).

I also play piano (poorly, though my uncle was a professional), and though I have none here am quite familiar with the sound.

Very cool, Jerry! Try a CD by Ken Peplowski on clarinet sometime. Amazingly lyrical, with at least state-of-the-art sound on some of his CDs (A favorite: 1992 CD). Also: Peplowski

Some of my speakers use active crossovers. There's actually a button on my DCX for adjusting time alignment (and, of course, settings in the user-interface).

Do know that this is not an adjustment for time alignment, except by a coarse and inaccurate definition. It is a time-delay that can be dialed in by a certain amount, such as 1 millisecond, to make the tweeter time-aligned with the woofer at the crossover point. But the two drivers still drift out-of-synch away from that one frequency, because the amount of time-delay required is different at each frequency, a by-product of how high-order filters work.

The sound issue causes actual, physical, discomfort and feels exactly like harsh tweeters (in fact it reminds me a lot of when I was underpowering my N801s). I suppose, though interesting, the cause is less important than the effect.

I'm not sure I understand. Why would knowing the cause be less important?

Best regards,
Roy

 

[KEW]

Those are its two lead-in wires down into its voice coil. In fact, they are the voice-coil wires themselves- very small, delicate and highly flexible (especially compared to other tweeters) so the dome can move the most freely on small signals, which is a stroke we cannot measure short of the Siemans million$ laser displacement-measuring system in Germany (which has shown to my satisfaction that a very famous diamond-dome tweeter fails to move when the SPL is below ~60dB at one meter- research by a ribbon-tweeter designer whose parts I am considering using).

I don't follow this, why do you need to measure this optically instead of measuring it with a microphone?
I can appreciate that a laser displacement system would be a bit more precise, but it seems that regular audio gear would do a fine job.

Thanks!

 

[RoyJ]

I don't follow this, why do you need to measure this optically instead of measuring it with a microphone?
I can appreciate that a laser displacement system would be a bit more precise, but it seems that regular audio gear would do a fine job.

Thanks!

Good question, and I thought about elaborating on that but the post was already long enough and the explanation is not...

Microphones are not-so-responsive down at that 40dB-to-60dB SPL range, especially 'measuring' microphones (another long subject), at least not enough to see exactly how much a tweeter (or woofer) is shutting down. Also, there are serious signal to noise ratio problems that make seeing fine detail in one's measurements even harder. S/N ratio down there at best is 20-25dB, which is like hearing a noisy radio station.

Since the Seimans lab did this on the side for the ribbon tweeter designer, as 'a very interesting challenge to their machine's uniquely-high sensitivity to small motions', I doubt he could release their results publicly. But the physics behind this issue, behind the choice of materials (and shapes) used for surrounds, has been known to the industry for a very long time.

The stiffer/thicker rubber (the 'wrong' rubber) for a tweeter is chosen often because it is 'just stiff enough/just thick enough' to be handled by a vacuum-pickup device, to then be centered around the dome and pressed down all-at-once onto a tiny ring of adhesive. If that rubber was any floppier, it would not stay flat under the light vacuum of the pickup device, and thus not glue-down flat. There are super-close photos of tweeter suspensions on our website and in them, you can see the precision required.

That thin ring of adhesive was applied by a servo-dispenser's needle beneath which the bare dome was spun, to lay down a very thin line of adhesive in a necessarily-perfect circle (why it's not done by humans).

Also, there must be a limit on how thinly one can injection-mold the rubber in the first place, which I know only a few tweeter manufacturers have explored, like SEAS in Norway (`cause they are large enough). In the Morel-USA tweeter used in the Europa, the tweeter's suspension is actually a continuation of the dome's own material (coated linen), so there's no glue joint and perhaps less moving mass. It remains flexible down to very small excursions, which we can hear but (once again), not easily measure.

In particular-
What the tweeter itself would be doing 'wrong' on a conventional Frequency Response graph (using a perfect microphone) is start to fall off in the low-treble range (the tweeter's 'bass range') as one ran the test more and more quietly. This is because the suspension around the dome is beginning to stiffen at the microscopic excursions required. Which is why technically we want super-floppy suspensions, because they delay the onset of that 'stiction' to even softer levels. There were many speakers from the 1970's that 'had no bass' until they were cranked hard, and part of that was their woofer-suspensions finally 'breaking loose' when hit hard enough.

Problem is, a microphone's diaphragm also behaves the same way- getting progressively stiffer at quieter levels.

At my end, I can hear that particular diamond-tweeter (and other tweeters) not putting out small delicate treble signals. This makes the treble sound 'dry' and/or have more of a 'black' (silent) background especially when listening at low levels, as when reading a book.

Best,
Roy

 

[JerryLove]

Those are its two lead-in wires down into its voice coil. In fact, they are the voice-coil wires themselves- very small, delicate and highly flexible (especially compared to other tweeters) so the dome can move the most freely on small signals, which is a stroke we cannot measure short of the Siemans million$ laser displacement-measuring system in Germany (which has shown to my satisfaction that a very famous diamond-dome tweeter fails to move when the SPL is below ~60dB at one meter- research by a ribbon-tweeter designer whose parts I am considering using).

But why are they forming a pair of loops on the left and right of the dome?

Jerry, you once mentioned that one just has to isolate the variables and then test for them. Quite true. In this case, how would any layman or reviewer imagine such technical variables exist, and then how to test for either one? This is some of what I am at least trying to share, trying to publicize here and on my website, and in that letter to sixmoons-- some of the many things about speaker design that go into making the best-possible sound, and how one might measure those. Regardless, it turns out most folks can hear 'that one problem' when the design-difference is isolated as the single variable, and then the right music played to trigger 'it'/to compare 'the difference' before and after. For me, this means I don't need to invest in Seimans' machine (which they would not sell anyway, as there is only one, in their R&D lab).

One reason I've given every opportunity for you, and others, to offer your own explanations. Then I can test for them. I neither believe nor disbelieve the explanations except in light of the predictions they make and the conformity of those predictions to actual outcomes.

The troubles you are hearing I know are NOT in the speakers (which I have also demonstrated for years here at the factory and at the shows). We can talk about that anytime of course. So, if it is indeed true that any harshness is not being created by the speakers, ...bear with me... then the only remaining possibility is you are finally hearing the speakers reveal something less-than-good from some other part of the system, triggered by specific music. The question to answer is 'which thing' is most at fault. Which is why you'd call me or one of our retailers, as any Owner is invited to do. Usually, there is at least one thing to change that helps a whole lot, to the point that your wife would hear the difference without actively paying attention. Happens here all the time with our local Owners.

The reason I've not put up a review is because I said I'd contact you and I will.

I don't believe the experience fits the model you propose; but I'm willing to try other experiments to establish the correct cause.

Sorry you have not heard that yet, but many others also have not, even those who occupy the most exalted positions in design. Go figure... I do know that most often this obfuscation is the fault of the speakers being used-- from my professional experience.

There's a great deal of experimentation supporting the model that the differences are either distortions (and "different" is treated as "better), most commonly in tube amps; or entirely psychosematic.

The musicality difference between amps (and other stuff) does not and may never show up on the finest measurement devices is my and Shakey's point. So one must listen and to save time and headaches, also be willing to seek guidance/advice from honest people who have been there and done that. Here I would suggest Shakey for this, if you don't want advice from me.

The idea that we cannot measure an electrical waveform is just silly. It also means that design is just a crap-shoot (which also doesn't bear out).

Very cool, Jerry! Try a CD by Ken Peplowski on clarinet sometime. Amazingly lyrical, with at least state-of-the-art sound on some of his CDs (A favorite: 1992 CD). Also: Peplowski

I'll buy one and take a listen. I do love good recordings.

Do know that this is not an adjustment for time alignment, except by a coarse and inaccurate definition. It is a time-delay that can be dialed in by a certain amount, such as 1 millisecond, to make the tweeter time-aligned with the woofer at the crossover point. But the two drivers still drift out-of-synch away from that one frequency, because the amount of time-delay required is different at each frequency, a by-product of how high-order filters work.

It's a digital crossover. There is no "high lead, low lag" from a electrical crossover unless it's deliberately added. There's nothing to break the alignment of the multiple waveforms except the difference in the drivers themselves.

Interestingly: it should be completely possible to create custom delays at every frequency at any arbitrary resolution and independant for each driver. It's merely a matter of proccessing power. (audio is a recent hobby... computer technology is how I make a living.)

I'm not sure I understand. Why would knowing the cause be less important?

Because the point of this exercise is to evaluate the proverbial mousetrap: not build a better one. In determining if I, or someone else, wants to use a speaker to make sound, the ability of that speaker to do so is far more important then how it's accomplished.

I'll gladly take a speaker system made of pixie dust if it makes a good enough sound.

 

[JerryLove]

It occurs to me this morning... it's hard not to read Roy's posts this way:

If you want computer speakers, don't buy mine. You need to be more than 3' away.

If you want room ambiance speakers, don't buy mine, you need to position them perfectly relative to your own position (that's been his response to comparisons with other speakers not precisely placed).

If you want to watch movies, don't buy these... both because of that small sweet-spot, and because it's gonna make inferior recordings sound really bad by "bringing out their flaws). Since that apparently includes my DTSMaster signal from Pirates of the Carribean, I assume it will include most movies.

If you have only $2000 or so in receiver / amp, don't buy these. They will bring out the flaws in your equipment (again, given as a reason for sound issues I've mentioned).

If you have normal ears, then you aren't used to hearing time-coherent sound and even after more than 50 hours of listening (which I've done) they'll hurt your ears. (not the speaker's fault, but still caused by them).

If you live in a room, don't get these. The room will kill the sound.

The list goes on and on... and some of these conclusions are far worse than my experience (I found the Europa's just fine for filling a large space with moderate background music). But every one of the above comes as a paraphrase of a RoyJ quote... and that's a bit disturbing.

The best sounding speaker in the world, if it only sounds even on-par in a small subset of rooms, with a small subset of (expensive) equipment, with a small subset of sources, after a lot of configuration and with only a few sources (and apparently even then, "best" is "ear fatiguing") wouldn't be a very good speaker for people to actually buy.

 

[KEW]

It occurs to me this morning... it's hard not to read Roy's posts this way:

If you want computer speakers, don't buy mine. You need to be more than 3' away.

If you want room ambiance speakers, don't buy mine, you need to position them perfectly relative to your own position (that's been his response to comparisons with other speakers not precisely placed).

If you want to watch movies, don't buy these... both because of that small sweet-spot, and because it's gonna make inferior recordings sound really bad by "bringing out their flaws). Since that apparently includes my DTSMaster signal from Pirates of the Carribean, I assume it will include most movies.

If you have only $2000 or so in receiver / amp, don't buy these. They will bring out the flaws in your equipment (again, given as a reason for sound issues I've mentioned).

If you have normal ears, then you aren't used to hearing time-coherent sound and even after more than 50 hours of listening (which I've done) they'll hurt your ears. (not the speaker's fault, but still caused by them).

If you live in a room, don't get these. The room will kill the sound.

The list goes on and on... and some of these conclusions are far worse than my experience (I found the Europa's just fine for filling a large space with moderate background music). But every one of the above comes as a paraphrase of a RoyJ quote... and that's a bit disturbing.

The best sounding speaker in the world, if it only sounds even on-par in a small subset of rooms, with a small subset of (expensive) equipment, with a small subset of sources, after a lot of configuration and with only a few sources (and apparently even then, "best" is "ear fatiguing") wouldn't be a very good speaker for people to actually buy.

Yeah, but think how good it'll sound when you finally get there!
It is like going on a hunt and taking three days to snare a catch - after starving for so long, it'll be some of the best eating you'll ever get!

Seriously, you do make a good point. The image is not one of speakers that naturally sound good, but of speakers you have to work at to make sound good! The real twist to this is that you are not the casual consumer who buys and uses without thought to setup.

 

[sawzalot]

I have been reading since day one for a few reasons, 1. Jerry has showed me a side of audioholics that I feel is 100% spot on, almost over the top, to buy and demo and analyze these speakers in the manner he is and keep us informed of pretty much every detail without prejudice , awesome job Jerry , Thanks.
2. I consider this a lesson in speaker use, placement, variables, TRUTHS, the list goes on , this will be recommended reading for Audioholics going through the learning and upgrading stages of speakers, period. What to look for and what to steer clear of,fun thread with real time experience, I am learning as I read.
3. I think with proper funding the title could be any number of speaker and we would have another learning experience, " Blank Blank ' any one ever hear of these ? and here we go again >I love the sites reviews but these ones direct from members are awesome, I know there is so much more about these GMA speaks other than this thought I have but that whole placement issue is really disturbing for me, if there is only one exact perfect spot to be in to hear the best these have to offer how in the world could they be played for your friends, company, everyone gonna sit on the same 4 sq. ft. plot of land, thats where it seems to be narrowing down to, or do you only listen to them one person at a time, in that case no one could ever agree on any particulars by not experiencing the sound together.
* Go ahead in, it's your turn.

 

[RoyJ]

Hi Jerry,

But why are they forming a pair of loops on the left and right of the dome?

I would ask you to take a close look: One 'loop' is the wire coming through from its backside "+" terminal, then looping up a little for flexibility before it plunges down next to the dome (back through the linen) and becomes the actual voice-coil winding. Its other end then emerges on the other side, loops up a little and then dives back in at the outer edge to return to the "-" solder terminal on the back.

Most modern tweeters hide their lead-in wires behind the dome's suspension, and either way is fine when well executed. I don't have a close-up photo of your tweeter to post- sorry. You can see it is a super-fine gauge wire, again for flexibility (and for low mass). In most other tweeters, the lead-in wires are far bulkier, with solder often added. But these are easier to handle, easier to assemble and thus less expensive.

One reason I've given every opportunity for you, and others, to offer your own explanations. Then I can test for them.

Sure. Please note that Shakey and I described some of what should be heard. And I have explained what is going on. Further, for you to test for them (if possible), I've described why each common test has its own problems, and thus what should be expected as 'accurate' from each. I do publish my results of the uncommon tests on our specs pages, describing how each was performed-- tests anyone could then run given time and money, without a test chamber.

The reason I've not put up a review is because I said I'd contact you and I will.

Certainly, and thanks.

There's a great deal of experimentation supporting the model that the differences are either distortions (and "different" is treated as "better"), most commonly in tube amps; or entirely psychosomatic.

Quite true. And several amplifiers out there are extraordinarily musical compared to anything else near them in price- not super-cheap, like $1k to $3k for a new solid-state integrated or $3k+ for certain very-old Mac tube amps. All measure pretty darned good in every conventional way, FYI.

They have much in common: Simple inside. Less feedback. 'Over-rated' parts like a fairly big power supply for just 60Watts/channel. More-direct wiring instead of complex circuit boards. A more-transparent-sounding volume control and binding posts... Just solder them in and hear the difference, good or bad, right away in these simple yet overbuilt designs.

And that area is a bit of a crap shoot, which means it takes a lot of time and money to find out, but only if the designer has long experience with these simpler, overbuilt amp designs compared to all the other ways to amplify signals... and right there is why only 'several' companies make super-duper amps. And I've learned not to trust most reviewers in finding out.

Instead, I rely my ears and those of others in the industry having long experience, thus being now plenty skeptical, etc. For you, I know you can at least get correct and useful information from our retailers, which is why we don't have many.

To continue just a bit more, what everyone we know has heard from these few amps, whether tubed or solid-state, even on speakers other than ours, is MUCH less of an electronic 'sound', less 'mechanical' sound, more sway and groove to the rhythms, more 'touch' to each note or flat-out more incisiveness when the big notes come. Plain as day-- hear it in the next room- even what Shakey wrote earlier about experiencing whipcrack transients, etc, and I would add even when not sitting in the middle.

But the key word here was 'several' amps, and personally I have found most other gear is at least 'good enough', including Denon, etc. And the differences between the mass-market brands such as Denon (not meant as disparaging) are nowhere near as large as reviewers would have us believe.

The idea that we cannot measure an electrical waveform is just silly.

Agreed! And the questions are what waveforms shall one choose and why? What tests are then to be to run with those waveforms, and why? What is each procedure actually 'testing' in that design?

I have described several tests for any speakers, along with their pros and cons. Too bad none of us can get this info from amp and cable designers.

It also means that design is just a crap-shoot (which also doesn't bear out).

See my own 'crap shoot' comment above. On the other hand, since anyone can now build an amp, a speaker or cable, that's why the market is flooded with products. Fortunately, my experience is that most all well-made amps, cables, etc, are 'good enough' nowadays, and that there are many 'acceptable speakers'. Which seems to mean I agree with all of you!

(about the Peplowski CD)
I'll buy one and take a listen. I do love good recordings.

The one I recommended is a great recording, a real reference in every way, and I also expect you to flip over the musicianship of everyone on there. Wow. `Way better performances, with real emotion and talent compared to any of the audiophile discs of second-rate performers.

It's a digital crossover. There is no "high lead, low lag" from a electrical crossover unless it's deliberately added. There's nothing to break the alignment of the multiple waveforms except the difference in the drivers themselves.

Interestingly: it should be completely possible to create custom delays at every frequency at any arbitrary resolution and independent for each driver. It's merely a matter of processing power. (audio is a recent hobby... computer technology is how I make a living.)

Agreed. No doubt, in theory. But one has to not only have the crossover slopes' varying time-shifts fixed/avoided/programmed-away, but then be able to also fix the time-shift issues caused by the drivers themselves, from their cone-breakups, their moving masses and their suspensions. Those cannot easily be measured below 500Hz by an end user. Above 500Hz, they can be measured and fixed only sort-of, and only then with a decent calibration mic, flat past 20kHz, having a 1/4" capsule, which cost at least $300.

To find the dedicated DSP software which can do all of that, search Google using "digital crossover" + "constant group delay". The only one I know is the "Thuneau" brand and they admit the limitation below 500Hz. I think it is $2k for their software, which must run in a dedicated computer. Thus, I don't think Beringer or others put that sort of processing power or complex software in their affordable digital crossovers, but only offer fixed time delays, such as to move a tweeter back 3 inches, etc.

[I had asked about Jerry's hearing distortion and if knowing the cause was important, but perhaps I was not clear enough]...
Because the point of this exercise is to evaluate the proverbial mousetrap: not build a better one. In determining if I, or someone else, wants to use a speaker to make sound, the ability of that speaker to do so is far more important then how it's accomplished.

I agree. And I am suggesting the best and easiest ways to evaluate them. And I have been questioned about why time-coherence was important, since you and others asked. Which is indeed "how it's accomplished".

Yes, "the ability of that speaker to do so is far more important then how it's accomplished". My suggestion is to then not worry so much about making your own speaker measurements, since you can only make ones that reveal only a little about what you hear on music. We see this often in Stereophile's tests.

Instead, I suggest spending your time listening to certain recordings, especially some of the ones listed on our website under 'How to shop for (any) speakers'. Each one has well-recorded voices of world-class talent as great references, since we all know from birth the sound of voices. Each disc has many acoustic instruments that are easy to judge with when one knows their real sounds... The particular discs we list better not sound bad in any way or that speaker is a waste of your time.

In general, recordings that let us most quickly evaluate speakers for tone balance, clarity and more, are from artists who always use a good studio, like Dire Straits or Diana Krall. Their voices are the anchor to 'center our minds' around. On them, it is easy to hear if a speaker makes a singer sound spitty or hard, or nasal, chesty or honky, or 'in your face', or find out if you have to sit right in the middle... or is she just 'normal' sounding? And then, most anywhere in your room? We offer 'normal' sound I think, all around the room, a word not so great for marketing.

This type of reference-listening (relying on the voice-range or middle-range first on any record) also allows us to have a midrange-reference for how the speaker's bass and treble sound (too loud/too soft/too boomy/too hissy... compared to the middle range of 'natural' sounds). And always keep in mind how loud any record was most-likely intended to be played.

I'll gladly take a speaker system made of pixie dust if it makes a good enough sound.

That would be cool, wouldn't it? Gotta be lighter than marble.

Best,
Roy

 

[RoyJ]

Hi Jerry,

It occurs to me this morning... it's hard not to read Roy's posts this way:
If you want computer speakers, don't buy mine. You need to be more than 3' away.

Right. Five feet minimum on Europas, actually.

If you want room ambiance speakers, don't buy mine, you need to position them perfectly relative to your own position (that's been his response to comparisons with other speakers not precisely placed).

You are exaggerating, and that has not been my response. Specifically, all I have written was to keep them clear of furniture and TV screens and stereo-gear-faceplates, the usual... as with ANY speaker, right? And then, if you are going to have that one best seat for two ears vs. two speakers, take time to place any speakers precisely the same distance from you and from the wall behind them using a tape measure and a helper.

If you want to watch movies, don't buy these... both because of that small sweet-spot, and because it's gonna make inferior recordings sound really bad by "bringing out their flaws). Since that apparently includes my DTSMaster signal from Pirates of the Carribean, I assume it will include most movies.

Never wrote that, sorry. In fact, a search of other forums and a quick read of each of our speakers' intro page on our website would reveal that I state one should expect to enjoy any recording on any amp at any loudness. And the first "Pirates" has a really well-done soundtrack. So does the DTS Eagles' "Hell Freezes Over" A true reference. And our sweet spot is not small at all. Just sit down anywhere out in front, even far off to one side, and compare what you hear to that from any other speakers. Piece of cake.

If you have only $2000 or so in receiver / amp, don't buy these. They will bring out the flaws in your equipment (again, given as a reason for sound issues I've mentioned).

Again, never stated it in that way, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. Our Owners' universal consensus is a) our speakers don't make bad recordings worse, but more enjoyable (and still obviously 'bad'), and b) they make it easy to hear when something in the system is improved or made worse in just a few minutes, not a few weeks, especially using the CD-listening techniques I just recommended.

We stock our workbenches with old gear, specifically 1970's Kenwood integrateds and Technics receivers, 1980's H/K amps and preamps, a 1994 H/K cd player, a 1999 $800 Denon preamp, 2001 Denon and 2010 Marantz $200 DVD changers, each connected with $50 or so old interconnects like ones made with Mogami wire, and $1/foot clear Monster-Cable type speaker wire. Want photos? There's even a digital amp in the mix. 200Watts and pick it up with three fingers...

Each system sounds totally enjoyable on anything we play. Anything. At any loudness. Which makes it easy to always know that we sound good on all sorts of stuff, unlss there is something unusual about the gear or the room or the setup... Do they sound different? Yes, but it's no big deal, as one gets lost in the music right away. Ask what that tells you, please!

Now, while the 'killer system' resides in the front room (where we seldom are), every visitor, women included, hear what we do in the production area via this 'ordinary gear'- which is sound that is highly musical, never hurts the ears, even at 100dB on brass, never playing audiophile recordings, but just regular CDs. No isolation cones, no CD damping mats, etc. Just barebones decent gear in a large assembly room with a fair amount of echo (has hard floors), and with finished speakers setting on the workbenches (burning in). Again I ask what all of that may tell anyone, including you.

If you have normal ears, then you aren't used to hearing time-coherent sound and even after more than 50 hours of listening (which I've done) they'll hurt your ears. (not the speaker's fault, but still caused by them).

No way I wrote that! And no, never caused by them. We all experience time-coherent sound every day from each natural source of sound, whether that's someone's voice or our car's engine. It sounds more real when I can make the speakers put out more time-coherent sound than our competition. That's all.

If you live in a room, don't get these. The room will kill the sound.

WTF??? Never wrote anything like that. One gets bad sound only in a room with a fair amount of echo, as can be heard when people stand around talking in it. That would never be an environment for high-quality listening, for any loudspeaker.

The list goes on and on... and some of these conclusions are far worse than my experience (I found the Europa's just fine for filling a large space with moderate background music). But every one of the above comes as a paraphrase of a RoyJ quote... and that's a bit disturbing.

Jerry, those are all quite inaccurate paraphrases and so I'd ask you to read over what I have written, please. Thanks.

The best sounding speaker in the world, if it only sounds even on-par in a small subset of rooms, with a small subset of (expensive) equipment, with a small subset of sources, after a lot of configuration and with only a few sources (and apparently even then, "best" is "ear fatiguing") wouldn't be a very good speaker for people to actually buy.

True of many other speakers, certainly. But not of ours and I have never said nor implied that about our speakers in any way, period. Neither has any other GMA-supporter on any forum. Go ahead and search for yourself. Nowhere. If you continue to ask for my contribution, then just back off a bit and please study and think over what I write (yes, I'm pissed).

Regardless, best wishes,
Roy

 

[RoyJ]

... I consider this a lesson in speaker use, placement, variables, TRUTHS, the list goes on , this will be recommended reading for Audioholics going through the learning and upgrading stages of speakers, period. What to look for and what to steer clear of,fun thread with real time experience, I am learning as I read.
3. I think with proper funding the title could be any number of speaker and we would have another learning experience, " Blank Blank ' any one ever hear of these ? and here we go again >I love the sites reviews but these ones direct from members are awesome, I know there is so much more about these GMA speaks other than this thought I have but that whole placement issue is really disturbing for me, if there is only one exact perfect spot to be in to hear the best these have to offer how in the world could they be played for your friends, company, everyone gonna sit on the same 4 sq. ft. plot of land

Thank you for your input. I would point out that it is stereo, which means two speakers headed to two ears, which means there can only be one best seat, no matter what speaker.

We and our Owners and Retailers are very pleased with what is heard far off that central listening position, especially when compared to the competition. Sorry if you have gained another impression- the true sweet spot by definition exists only in one place, but I know our speakers' sound is more than acceptable by anyone's standards anywhere else in a room. We definitely do not make not head-in-a-vise type of speakers, as the sound heard from them when far off-axis remains much more time-coherent, by hundreds of degrees of phase shift, than other speakers-- one reason among many why our sweet spot is considered quite large for everyday listening in a real home. And I explain technically why that is on our site.

Y'all have a good weekend!

Best regards,
Roy

 

[JerryLove]

You are exaggerating, and that has not been my response. Specifically, all I have written was to keep them clear of furniture and TV screens and stereo-gear-faceplates, the usual... as with ANY speaker, right? And then, if you are going to have that one best seat for two ears vs. two speakers, take time to place any speakers precisely the same distance from you and from the wall behind them using a tape measure and a helper.

Placement does matter on all speakers. I believe you have alluded to some even more subtle nuance of placement being a possible cause of the less-than-ideal-to-my-ear issues that remain. Given how carefully I've placed these, and the number of adjustments I've tried, to continue to blame room acoustics / placement (I can quote the posts where you are) would indeed be calling them abnormally sensitive to such things.

If you want to watch movies, don't buy these... both because of that small sweet-spot, and because it's gonna make inferior recordings sound really bad by "bringing out their flaws). Since that apparently includes my DTSMaster signal from Pirates of the Carribean, I assume it will include most movies.

Never wrote that, sorry. In fact, a search of other forums and a quick read of each of our speakers' intro page on our website would reveal that I state one should expect to enjoy any recording on any amp at any loudness

Alright I can already see the pattern. I'm gonna finish responding by going into detail here.

Let's start with post #266

The troubles you are hearing I know are NOT in the speakers (which I have also demonstrated for years here at the factory and at the shows). We can talk about that anytime of course. So, if it is indeed true that any harshness is not being created by the speakers, ...bear with me... then the only remaining possibility is you are finally hearing the speakers reveal something less-than-good from some other part of the system, triggered by specific music. The question to answer is 'which thing' is most at fault. Which is why you'd call me or one of our retailers, as any Owner is invited to do. Usually, there is at least one thing to change that helps a whole lot, to the point that your wife would hear the difference without actively paying attention. Happens here all the time with our local Owners.

So I've complained of issues with the audio. Pirates of The Carribiean was one where it was particularly exaggerated. Your response was that the problem is with "some other part of the system".

My BluRay is a reference-level source (PS3).
My AVR is widely respected (Marantz 7002).
My source is the BluRay version of PotC: AWE running DTS-Master / Dobly TrueHD.

And every other speaker sounds fine with this material.

To boot: I'm well versed with the difference between a speaker "good enough to show flaws" and issues introduced by putting the speaker in system. I've heard many a poor recording that sounded par on poor equipment (small headphones / etc), but in which the flaws were easily detected on better equipment.

I'm also not inexperienced at gear-based limitations (such as the N801's introduce on an amp).

But no matter which part of the pre-speaker system you wish to assign blame, you are avowing one of the paraphrases you just disavowed.

So it's not the blu-ray? Is it the PS3? Do Europas require multi-thousand-dollar blu-ray players to sound decent? Is is the Marantz? Is basically the entire market of even $1k receivers (recall I've also run these off Integra and Pioneer, and off an external amp) going to be a problem? Or is it the position?

In the end you *must* be making one of those claims... or, of course, you are simply saying that I am imagining what I'm hearing (or am being dishonest about it).

So is my gear not good enough? In that case: few people will have sufficient gear.

Is my source not good enough? (you just said otherwise)

Is my placement insufficient despite following the recommendations, and experimenting, and having had several other bookshelves in those same spots (you said I exaggerated the placement fussyness).

I can't tell you what a pirate-ship-fight in a god-created maelstrom against an undead octopus-man actually sounds like (I do know what a cannon actually sounds like but am grateful no one reproduced that); but I can tell you what I'm hearing is not what I heard in the theater (an environment for which the sound was mixed in the first place), is not what I've heard on other systems, and is not (most importantly) pleasant. The foley is over-emphasized and the music under. The voices through clear, blend together.

Obviously, I cannot expect you, without being here, to be definitive. But do please tell me which of the above might be my problem, or which I missed. I suspect you'll find you are claiming exactly what I paraphrased before (or that I'm simply lying).

 

[Dr. Parthipan]

You're right Jerry this is beginning to sound as though those 10 year old Europas are never being blamed for what you're hearing. This implies they are flawless.
I don't feel comfortable with that. Is Roy willing to accept the possibility that those speakers are quite simply flawed?

never hurts the ears, even at 100dB on brass, never playing audiophile recordings, but just regular CDs. No isolation cones, no CD damping mats, etc. Just barebones decent gear in a large assembly room with a fair amount of echo (has hard floors), and with finished speakers setting on the workbenches (burning in). Again I ask what all of that may tell anyone, including you.

Professor Roy Johnson, How can you make the claim it will never hurt your ears when that is a conclusion only other people can make?
I think it's far more reasonable to say that we all experience sound in different ways and some have a higher pain threshold than others. No?

Regarding the echos, they are not present in the recorded material so why should they be allowed to be present?

 

[TLS Guy]

Jerry, I think you have gone about as far as you can to evaluate these speakers. You impressions are very much what I would expect.

First of all very few recordings are phase and time aligned. I would venture to suggest zero movies and no music in the non classical realm. Even in the classical realm they are far and few between.

I was recently at an AES meeting at MPR studios St. Paul, concerning digital microphones. Senior staff were on hand from Sennheiser/Neumann. I asked them if they had plans to time and phase align multiple microphones other than a crude tape measure. The answer was no. So the only way of getting a time and phase coherent recording is with single pair coincident techniques, that I used to use when doing a lot of outside broadcasts.

First order crossovers and staggered drivers had a fad in the late seventies and early eighties, and basically it is a busted flush in practicality.

From that era the Dahlquist DQ 10 had the same claims made as these Green Mountains. There are still a few adherents claiming these are the best speakers ever made. I thought they were a dreadful speaker and still do.

Another contender at the time was B & Ws "pregnant penguin" the DM6

If you play on paper with three spaced drivers you can see the time paths deviate with listening position.

Not only that phase is only optimal around crossover. First order crossovers have wide overlap and phase angle is not constant either side of the crossover.

Now I'm not saying you should be cavalier about phase and time. However the problem of phase and time aberration is inherent in spaced drivers. I suspect the problem is insoluble even with active digital crossovers.

If you really want to solve this particular problem then become a full ranger or buy Quad ESLs.

The other issue is that this issue of staggering drivers has been looked at in a number of recent articles and the evidence seems to point to staggering doing more harm than good over all.

The real problem is that there is no prospect of moving away from spaced drivers anytime soon. However more good drivers that can cover the 400 to 4 kHz band with good out of band response are badly required. These drivers are rare and none available to the home constructor. More solutions to that problem would be a good start.

 

[RoyJ]

Hi Jerry,
Thank you for sharing some details.

Given how carefully I've placed these, and the number of adjustments I've tried, to continue to blame room acoustics / placement (I can quote the posts where you are) would indeed be calling them abnormally sensitive to such things.

Jerry, I did not continue to blame anything, but perhaps could have been more clear. Please know that I was suggesting the principle variables of rooms and setup might still be at fault. I apologize if I somehow gave you any other impression. And I really have no clear idea how you have placed them, regardless of what you have written. After all, you started off listening to them laying on the floor and then on metal folding chairs, so I initially had my doubts. But don't go getting pissy or behaving like a bully yet, since I take you at your word, for now, that you have indeed tried hard to achieve a proper physical setup. Moving on...

I'm gonna finish responding by going into detail here.

Let's start with post #266
So I've complained of issues with the audio. Pirates of The Carribiean was one where it was particularly exaggerated. Your response was that the problem is with "some other part of the system".

Sorry- there I should have written that, to me 'the system' includes the room and the physical setup/arrangement of speakers and listeners. In my mind, I'd already made that clear.

Also, I've not heard a DVD-mix of Pirates, only the screened version in a decent theater, where the soundtrack was full of subtlety that was totally discarded in the later Pirates movies. A DVD's mix is ALWAYS different from the theatrical mix, and I don't know that disc, sorry. I should have been more specific.

My BluRay is a reference-level source (PS3).
My AVR is widely respected (Marantz 7002).
My source is the BluRay version of PotC: AWE running DTS-Master / Dobly TrueHD.

And every other speaker sounds fine with this material.

All fine by me, and I believe you about using other speakers. I have no issues with your gear, nor (again) with most all 'ordinary gear'. I will describe two more 'situations' in the hope that you and I can move past this:

I set up a pair of our C-1 3-way speakers on a 1982 plastic-Sansui rack system from Sears, driven from Sony's cheapest 1992 CD player, connected with 20 feet of 18 gauge zipcord and whatever cables came packed with that system. Totally enjoyable on any CD, in a mountain-cabin room 14 by 20, with the mature female Owner agreeing, no matter how loud I played it. Took about a half-hour to fine-tune the speakers' positions/time alignment.

A married couple here uses the same speakers on a year 2000 $700 Denon surround receiver (which I chose for them), again connected with ordinary wire and whatever cables came with their DVD player (don't remember the brand- we let it decode the CDs, not the Denon, as they had no 'digital' cable). After I positioned the speakers in a manner completely acceptable to her sensibilities and then focused their time-alignment, the sound was absolutely fine by me and by them, all the way to 100dB at ten feet distant on hard rock, and on over into the kitchen. Not a blip of harshness to any of us.

Please just consider once more what this continues to tell you about how I expect my speakers to behave in the real world, on truly ordinary gear. Or call me a liar, misquote me, whatever, so I'd be done with this. I would prefer we just keep moving forward.

So is my gear not good enough?

It is fine.

Is my source not good enough? (you just said otherwise)

Your player/DAC combo is fine. I likely meant the DVD-disc itself, sorry.

Is my placement insufficient?

I haven't a clue, regardless of what you wrote, until we talk and I see some photos.

...but I can tell you what I'm hearing is not what I heard in the theater (an environment for which the sound was mixed in the first place), is not what I've heard on other systems, and is not (most importantly) pleasant. The foley is over-emphasized and the music under. The voices through clear, blend together.

I have no doubt about what you are hearing, and am sure I'd hear it too! Again, what we hear in theaters is NEVER the same mix that appears on any DVD, never.

Obviously, I cannot expect you, without being here, to be definitive. But do please tell me which of the above might be my problem, or which I missed. I suspect you'll find you are claiming exactly what I paraphrased before (or that I'm simply lying).

Do let me know if you still think this way after reading these suggestions, given in no particular order, because I do not want to waste your or my time:

• Make sure the speakers are at least a few feet away in any direction from reflective surfaces.
• Hopefully, the room does not have a lot of echo and a lot of bare floor.
• Since these are used speakers, a tweeter could be damaged (not expensive to fix, there). Has happened before and I can suggest some tests for that.
• Are the speakers high enough, according to their Owner's Guide and a tape measure, for where you sit?
• Are the grilles on? Too bright with them off.
• Play a variety of music CDs to judge the sound for now, not movies, please! Movie soundtracks cannot be used as a reference (except 'as compared to other movies') because all have tons of compression and other processing, and our speakers will easily reveal that, sorry. Does not mean they have to sound unpleasant though, so don't get me wrong.

Still, we should talk, as to me this is an extreme situation. And to preempt any future concerns, know that I will NOT be talking with you about 'system tuning', 'tweaks' or 'synergy'. I'll have questions about the physical setup, the acoustics, and a few other things on my mental checklist.

To the Dr.:

You're right Jerry this is beginning to sound as though those 10 year old Europas are never being blamed for what you're hearing. This implies they are flawless.
I don't feel comfortable with that. Is Roy willing to accept the possibility that those speakers are quite simply flawed?

Nope, but thanks for asking. However, a tweeter could very likely be bad.

Professor Roy Johnson, How can you make the claim it will never hurt your ears when that is a conclusion only other people can make?

Because hundreds and hundreds of other people have stood or sat right next to me and agreed for two decades now, people with no reason to agree as they were not Owners nor even knew who we were, such as at the stereo shows. This is also why you will not find one comment about harshness from our speakers anywhere on the internet.

I think it's far more reasonable to say that we all experience sound in different ways and some have a higher pain threshold than others. No?

Yes, quite true about thresholds, but in my experience anyone can hear when irritating sounds are added to singers' voices for example, a prime example of a type of sound we all know well. As far as everyone experiencing sound in different ways? Sure, but that is not what is going on here, as I am quite certain I'd hear what Jerry and his wife are hearing, again from decades of experience with thousands of systems and rooms and gear and speakers-not-ours.

Regarding the echos, they are not present in the recorded material so why should they be allowed to be present?

Agreed, and this is true of our 'good' listening room. Here I was describing the acoustics of our final-assembly area, as its hard floor is required to move heavy speakers.

Best regards,
Roy

 

[RoyJ]

Jerry, I think you have gone about as far as you can to evaluate these speakers. You impressions are very much what I would expect.

I am happy you have made up your mind.

First of all very few recordings are phase and time aligned. I would venture to suggest zero movies and no music in the non classical realm. Even in the classical realm they are far and few between.

You fail to understand. What each mic hears coming into it is time-coherent.

So the only way of getting a time and phase coherent recording is with single pair coincident techniques, that I used to use when doing a lot of outside broadcasts.

And those sound more 'normal', more natural, more clear on music recordings than do widely-spaced mics.

First order crossovers and staggered drivers had a fad in the late seventies and early eighties, and basically it is a busted flush in practicality.

OK, if that's your opinion. 'Too bad' is my opinion.

From that era the Dahlquist DQ 10 had the same claims made as these Green Mountains.

No, they did not. You apparently do not know the necessary details of speaker design, which is ok. Most folks don't. A DQ-10 is radically opposite from what we are doing, or even Theil, Vandersteen or Dunlavy.

If you play on paper with three spaced drivers you can see the time paths deviate with listening position.

Right. No question.
So, set our speakers up and go sit down as they are then focused to that distance and farther away, not just in the center seat, but anywhere seated off axis. Then stand up, and our phase shift is still hundreds of degrees than other speakers.

Not only that phase is only optimal around crossover. First order crossovers have wide overlap and phase angle is not constant either side of the crossover.

You are right, but I figured out some very simple ways to adjust for that many years ago in our speakers, and to minimze it by careful selction of the drivers.

The other issue is that this issue of staggering drivers has been looked at in a number of recent articles and the evidence seems to point to staggering doing more harm than good over all.

Could you be at least a little specific? Show us the math, or someone's math? Go for it, please. But start another thread so this one is not cluttered, and I'd be happy to help explain the math in whatever papers you come up with, so you'll have all facts in front of you.

I hope you don't take this as an overall negative response from me, as I do appreciate any contributions that actually move the level of knowledge forward. Feel free to engage me in a separate discussion of the facts and myths about what time-coherent sound is and how it is achieved. But it will be easiest on all of us if you just read more about that on our site, thanks.

Best regards,
Roy